Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

[Guest guest]

But jnaani is still an upahita chaitanya like pot space - (see my recent post on knowledge series -15). Even though pot-space recognizes that I am the total space, due to the constraints of the pot-walls, it can still operate at vyavahaara level and say I am pot space and I know that I am total space too.

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Could you please elaborate bit more how this stand of yours is different from that of bhatruprapancha's bhEdAbhEda vAda?? The above is what exactly shankara refuted in bruhadAraNyaka upanishad bhAshya...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sri S prabhuji :

I must say that you are trying to read more than what I said or meant.

bhaskar :

My apologies if I did that...but your statements such as *like Ishwara jnAni too*, *jnAni's point at the level of Ishwara* etc. etc. make me to believe that you are equating jnAni with Ishwara whereas shruti says jnAni is brahman.

Sri S prabhuji :

It is in the understanding of oneness of jiiva, jagat and Iswara - That is the realization. In that understanding, there is no difference between jiivan mukta and Iswara - only the difference is in vesha, the costume they are wearing. The costume is the upaadhiis. Limitations of upaadhiis are not his limitations - that is what realization means.

bhaskar :

And if I may add here... in that state of realization there is no difference whatsoever (neha nAnAsti kiMchana) among jnAni/jivanmukta, Ishwara, (other) jIva(s) & jagat..so, as you rightly pointed out the socalled difference lies in avidyAkruta nAma rUpa vishesha or upAdhi-s....Since the jnAni's realization is that avidyA is vyAvahArik satya...it cannot hold water in the state of realization....I hope this statement would be valid even if I make it from the vyavahArik level...Ofcourse, you would agree with me that brahman/jnAni cannot have two realities one at the vyavahArik level & another at the pAramArthik level..It is because of the simple fact that for jnAni there is neither loukita nor vaidika vyavahAra..coz. *ALL* vyavahAra is the effect of avidyA (avidyA kArya)...Hence, shankara says in gIta bhAshya (2-69) : yOyaM loukikO vaidikashcha vyavahAraH sa utpannAtmavivekajnAnasya sthitha prajnasya avidyAkAryatvAt, avidyAnivruttau navartate.... Hope you would catch my concern here :-))

Sri S prabhuji :

Bhaskarji - with all due respects, please do not ask me Shankara bhaashya quotations - I am not a scholar.

bhaskar :

Kindly pardon me if I am troubling you too much...but what I thought is, wherever there is a difference of opinion, let that differnce be settled by the authoritative source i.e. prasthAnatrayi bhAshya of our paramAchAya sri shankara bhagavatpUjyapAda. If you think bhagavatpAda's works meant only for intellectual scholars, then I dont have anything to say.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

In the quote from the gIta bhAshya you give, Sri Shankaracharya is

refuting the view that the injunctions of the Vedas apply to the

jnAni. He says that this view is invalid because the jnAni knows

himself to not be a kartA.

 

However, Sri Shankaracharya clearly states in many places that a jnAni

can act for the sake of loka-sangraha even though he knows himself to

not be a kartA in reality. Gita 4.20 says that jnAni does nothing even

though engaged in action. If there is no vyavhAra whatsoever for a

jnAni, then in what sense could the jnAni be still said to be acting?

Is this statement absolute falsehood, then?

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Nice to hear from you after a long gap prabhuji.

Sri R prabhuji :

 

In the quote from the gIta bhAshya you give, Sri Shankaracharya is

refuting the view that the injunctions of the Vedas apply to the

jnAni. He says that this view is invalid because the jnAni knows

himself to not be a kartA.

bhaskar :

Yes, while describing why jnAni does not have any part in vyvahAra, shankara clearly says *loukikO* vaidikashcha vyavahAraH, here it is clear that not only vedic injunctions but also loukika vyavahAra will get sublated to the jnAni....So, I think from this, it is clear that jnAni does not have any type of avidyA to do trasactions...Dear Rishi prabhuji, you might be aware this whole discussion started just to determine whether jnAni in his post realization period would have avidyA or not....Some prabhuji-s in this group have taken the position of vyavahAra & attributed avidyA to jnAni & said that through which he could still continue to do vyavahAra...and my and some other members contention is that jnAni's realization says him that he was/is/never will be in the sphere of avidyA....In short, he is akarta & abhokta *all* the time...

 

Sri R prabhuji :

 

However, Sri Shankaracharya clearly states in many places that a jnAni can act for the sake of loka-sangraha even though he knows himself to

not be a kartA in reality. Gita 4.20 says that jnAni does nothing even though engaged in action. If there is no vyavhAra whatsoever for a

jnAni, then in what sense could the jnAni be still said to be acting? Is this statement absolute falsehood, then?

bhaskar :

No prabhuji, as said above, the context of this discussion is something different here ...The issue is not whether jnAni would continue to be there or not after realization...I didnot say realization will immediately bring the physical death of that jnAni & hence no vyavahAra (loukika as well as vaidika) is possible for him nor it is a peculiar state called samAdhi where in jnAni experiences the socalled AtmAnubhava with a dead mind!!...What I am trying to say here is ascertainment of whether jnAni has a sharIra or asharIri is immaterial since it is clearly said jnAni is always (trishwapi kAlEshu) asharIri & akatru-abhOkta..existence of jnAni-s body & death of it etc. etc. is kEvala mithyAjnAna...And for a realized jnAni this mithyAjnAni will get sublated and there is no kriyAkAraka phala buddhi in him. That is the reason why shankara says in chAndOgya shruti : asharIra svabhAvasya AtmanaH tadevAhaM sharIraM sharIramEva cha ahaM ityavivekAtmabhAvaH sasharIratvaM...With this the theory of *upahita* chaitanya also will get negated.

 

Regards,

Rishi.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : If my memory serves me right, sometime back, you had raised some valid objections to the usage of vyAvahArika satya in Advaita (I think it was based on your understanding of buddhist school) ...I would like to hear your thoughts on the topic : jnAni suffers from avidyA/ajnAna in vyavahAra & he will have the residual memories of avidyA/ajnAna even after realization that he is one without second and again at the vyavahArik level....

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

Thank you for the welcome, I hope that you have been keeping well.

 

I am sorry I did not know the exact context of the discussion. I have

been following it for a while but not long enough it seems.

 

" I would like to hear your thoughts on the topic : jnAni suffers from

avidyA/ajnAna in vyavahAra & he will have the residual memories of

avidyA/ajnAna even after realization that he is one without second and

again at the vyavahArik level.... "

 

After the jnAni gains knowledge, by definition she is free from

avidyA.

 

If you don't mind, let me translate (from Hindi) an answer to a

question given by Swami Ramsukhdasji (found in prashnottararatnAvali

published by Gita Press):

 

" Question: After gaining tattva-jnAna, does the jnAna keep increasing?

 

Answer: After gaining tattva-jnAna, there is no increase in the

knowledge, but as long as the body of the tattvajna mahApuruSa

remains, owing either to previous sAdhanA or to the person's nature,

viveka (in vyavahAra) keeps increasing. Due to the increase in viveka,

his explanations become clearer and better, and new examples and

reasoning come to him. Just as a gas lamp gives off special light when

the mantle gets burnt, in the same way, after gaining tattva-bodha,

the mahApuruSa's viveka starts to shine in a special way. "

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.